Re: [ga] No Members?
Dave Crocker wrote:
> ps. What is the productive goal in pursuing this matter in such
> detail? Are there no other issues for the GA to consider?
IMHO it is very important for the following reasons:
One of our board members raises it as a policy issue every chance he gets.
Several lawyers have wieghed in saying, at least, how important it is.
We are spending big money studying the At Large.
This directly ties into boardsquatter issues.
Some Congressmen are extremely interested in it.
At least one two outside groups are funding their own research into it.
It is supposedly how we elect the people who approve contracts with the USG and
I am sure that each of these reasons can be nitpicked to death, but the
overall premise is, I believe correct.
> At 09:54 AM 4/4/2001, Bruce James wrote:
> >OK, I am dumb.... Why did the Markle Foundation say in its Grant:
> >1) Membership Program Manager - 6 months including benefits $30,000
> >If we don't have any *Members*?? Did ICANN return the money?
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html